Presidential Candidates:

Mr. Douglas remarked that several speeches had been made very pointedly at him, making him out no better than an Abolitionist, for leaving the territories to carry out their own affairs. It does well to attack one man for his opinion; but when was the most aggravated act ever committed, that he did not say it was committed, in manumitting your slaves and confiscating your property? The gentleman who spoke thus, says: "It is not yet time." There is no better time than the present, to introduce a bill to repeal that act of the Kansas Legislature. Senators say that he (Douglas) may go out. No; he stands on the platform, and it is for those who jump off, to go out.

The chair called the Senate to order, threatening to clear the galleries, unless it was maintained.

Mr. Green said he had received information of the bill by telegraph; but could not legislate on such information.

Mr. Douglas would take it for granted that Mr. Green meant that he received authentic information, and would introduce a bill to repeal the act. The South, he said, had reluctantly acquiesced in the movement with the Democrats of the North to settle the question. He went at some length into a discussion and approval of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott. He did not agree with Senator Douglas's views as to the power of the people of a territory, and did not believe that the Nebraska-Kansas bill gave them independent power. The senator from Virginia then gave his ideas as to the people of the territories, and the people of the States. The right of property is recognized in the former, but the inhabitants of a territory are unknown to the Constitution. Congress cannot divest itself of its power over the property of the territories, but it can grant them nothing. South of the Potomac River, to the confines of Mexico, there is not one dissentient voice. The South would be recreant to itself; if it would give one vote for its rights to be taken from the Constitution, and remitted to the pleasure of the people temporarily in the territories.

Mr. Davis took an animated part in the debate against Mr. Douglas, who in the Kansas-Nebraska act, had made a great error, and drawn the Senate into a great error.

Mr. Douglas resumed, saying it won't do to read him out, because they had fallen from the faith. There is no middle ground. It is either intervention or non-intervention.

Mr. Gwin said, if the senator from Illinois had given the same interpretation to the Kansas-Nebraska bill when it was before the Senate, he (Gwin) would not have voted for it, and believed those around him would not. When the senator proposed to speak for the Democracy of the free States, he had no right to speak for California, which thought otherwise.

Mr. Broderick contradicted Mr. Gwin's statement of the views of California. He considered the views of his State were those expressed by Mr. Douglas.

Mr. Gwin replied that he was sent here to do his duty in representing the Democracy of California, and he knew they indorse the action of the Administration, and do not at all indorse the interpretation given by the senator from Illinois.

Mr. Douglas (to Mr. Gwin.) I do say the records show a very general concurrence in the views I then expressed.

Mr. Iverson raised the question of order, that Mr. Douglas had spoken many times. He and Mr. Davis had occupied the floor four or five hours. The point of order was sustained.

Mr. Hunter said it was with reluctance that he occupied the time at the late period of the evening, but the turn the debate had taken rendered an explanation necessary, in justice to himself. He differed with the senator from Illinois, both in the history of the Kansas-Nebraska act, and what was intended by it. When the proposition was made to pass that, he maintained, as he has always done since he has had a place on that floor, that the South had a right to protection for their slave property in the territories.

Mr. Hunter read from his speech of that date, showing the views he then expressed. The case stood thus: southern men on one side maintained they had right, under the Constitution, to protection to their slave property; northern men thought the contrary, and there was no chance of agreement between them, as the act was very carefully framed, neither affirming nor disaffirming the power of the territory to abolish slavery, but reserving the question of right, and agreeing to refer to the judiciary any points arising out of it. It was in itself a compromise, in which neither party conceded their opinions or their rights. They were but placed in abeyance until a case affecting them might arise. No southern man with whom he acted ever considered he was conferring on the Territorial Legislature the absolute right to deal with this subject. They agreed to this settlement as a consequence, acting together upon points wherein they agreed, and expressing no opinion upon points where the differences were irreconcilable. By this they secured the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, upon which the Democrats were agreed, by confining the act to the general purpose to be accomplished. Justice to himself and the distinguished senator from South Carolina, now no more, with whom he had acted and consulted on the matter, required the explanation. Mr. Hunter then drew the attention of the Senate to the time consumed in the debate, and urged a vote upon the amendment.

Mr. Stuart, after some general remarks on the subject under discussion, asked, why should the Democratic party be racked and torn by the thought of the contingences which may not happen? If the Democratic party in a body, if its able and efficient members throughout the country, stand faithfully together, their flag will remain in the ascendant, and the party will rise out of all the difficulties which now beset it.

Mr. Bigler was opposed to Congress extending slavery in the territories, and against Congressional intervention with slavery, and would stand by the Baltimore and Cincinnati platforms of the Democratic party. He believed the best interests of the country were in the hope of the Democracy.

Mr. Douglas is a powerful debater, quick, ready at repartee, strong in his logic, and possessing that animal courage which is so necessary to the successful debater. Few men equal him in senatorial debate for rough power. There are many who surpass him in silvery eloquence, who excel him in winning, courteous debate, but no one in the present Senate who has quite his force and overwhelming courage. In the debate, which we have abbreviated, Mr. Douglas was for hours – from noon till nine o'clock in the evening – obliged to defend himself against a half-dozen able and eloquent senators. His manner, his voice, were at times like that of a wounded lion – deep, strong and melancholy; but he fought to the last without a moment's thought of quailing.

Mr. Douglas has no sympathy with the anti-slavery sentiment of the free States, but plants himself upon his principle, and puts slavery and freedom upon the same footing. If the people want slavery, let them have it. If they want freedom – no interference in favor of slavery. This we understand to be his position, though some of his southern friends claim that he admits that the Supreme Court is bound to give slavery an existence in all the territories. In his New Orleans speech of last winter, Mr. Douglas is reported to have said:

"Whenever a territory has a climate, soil and production, making it the interest of the inhabitants to encourage slave property, they will pass a slave code, and give it encouragement. Whenever the climate, soil and production preclude the possibility of slavery being profitable, they will not permit it. You come right back to the principle of dollars and cents. I do not care where the migration in the southern country comes from; if old Joshua R. Giddings should raise a colony in Ohio, and settle down in Louisiana, he would be the strongest advocate for slavery in the whole South; he would find, when he got there, his opinion would be very much modified; he would find on those sugar plantations that it was not a question between the white man and the negro, but between the negro and the crocodile.

"He would say that, between the negro and the crocodile, he took the side of the negro. But, between the negro and the white man, he would go for the white man. The Almighty has drawn the line on this continent, on one side of which the soil must be cultivated by slave labor; on the other, by white labor. That line did not run on thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, for thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes runs over mountains and through valleys. But this slave line meanders in the sugar-fields and plantations of the South – [the remainder of the sentence was lost by the confusion around the reporter.] And the people living in their different localities and in the territories must determine for themselves whether their 'middle bed' is best adapted to slavery or free labor.

"Hence, under the Constitution, there is no power to prevent a southern man going there with his slaves, more than a northern man."

Mr. Douglas is a man of very short stature, but of large body, and a frame and constitution capable of great endurance. He lives in Washington half the year, where he has a handsome residence, and the other half in Illinois among his constituents, where he has a country mansion. The mother of Mr. Douglas, who was so faithful to him and whom he has never ceased to love and reverence, still lives, and has witnessed his rise from the cabinet-maker's shop to the senatorial chair.

SALMON P. CHASE

Salmon Porland Chase was born in Cornish, New Hampshire, Jan. 13th, 1808. He was seven years old when his father removed to the town of Keene, where he attended the village school. In 1817 his father died, and two years later the boy, then only twelve years old, went to Worthington, Ohio. His uncle, Philander Chase, was then Bishop of Ohio, and he superintended the education of his nephew. Shortly after this, he entered Cincinnati College, of which institution his uncle became president. He soon was promoted to the sophomore class. After a year's residence in Cincinnati, he returned to New Hampshire and his mother's house; and, in 1824, entered the junior class of Dartmouth College. He graduated in 1826. The following winter Mr. Chase went to the city of Washington, and opened a classical school for boys. Among his pupils were the sons of Henry Clay, William Niel, and other distinguished men. Many of the citizens of Washington at this day well remember Mr. Chase's efforts as a teacher among them, and at that time learned to esteem and respect the man who has since risen to so high a position as a politician and statesman. He closed his school in 1829, and soon was admitted to the bar, having studied law under Mr. Niel while teaching his school, manifesting by his industry and courage that he was possessed of the qualities which must certainly in the end bring him position and reputation.

In 1830, Mr. Chase left Washington for Cincinnati, where he has always since resided, save when serving his State in an official capacity, and pursued his profession. He was poor, unknown, and before he could hope to attract the attention of the public, must earn his bread and endure months, if not years, of serious toil and drudgery. During these early years in his professional career, he prepared an edition of Statutes of Ohio, and a preliminary sketch of the history the State. The work made three large volumes, and at once became an authority in the courts. The authorship of this volume was a happy idea, for it not only brought him a moderate pecuniary reward directly, but it also gave him the ear of the people, and practice at once flowed in upon him.

In 1834, Mr. Chase became solicitor of the Bank of the United States in Cincinnati, and other corporations. In 1837, he first gave public utterance to his views upon the slavery question in its legal aspects. The article in Appleton's Encylopædia upon Mr. Chase, which on many points is our authority in this sketch, gives the subjoined history of Mr. Chase's early legal arguments in reference to slavery:

"In 1837, Mr. Chase acted as counsel for a colored woman claimed as a fugitive slave and in an elaborate argument, afterward published, controverted the authority of Congress to impose any duties or confer any powers in fugitive slave cases on state magistrates, a position in which he has since been sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court; and maintained that the law of 1793, relative to fugitives from service, was void, because unwarranted by the Constitution of the United States. The same year, in an argument before the Supreme Court of Ohio, in defence of James G. Birney, prosecuted under a State law for harboring a negro slave, Mr. Chase asserted the doctrine that slavery is local, and independent on state law for existence and continuance, and insisted that the person alleged to have been harbored, having been brought within the territorial limits of Ohio by the individual claiming her as master, was thenceforth, in fact and by right, free. In 1838, in a newspaper review of a report of the judiciary committee of the senate of Ohio against the granting of trial by jury to alleged slaves, Mr. Chase took the same ground as in his legal arguments. In 1846, he was associated with the Hon. W. H. Seward as defendant's counsel in the case of Van Zandt, before the Supreme Court of the United States. The case excited much interest, and in a speech which attracted marked attention, Mr. Chase argued more elaborately the principles which he advanced in former cases, maintaining that under the ordinance of 1787 no fugitives from service could be reclaimed from Ohio, unless there had been an escape from one of the original States; that it was the clear understanding of the framers of the Constitution, and of the people who adopted it, that slavery was to be left exclusively to the disposal of the several States, without sanction or support from the National Government; and that the clause of the Constitution relative to persons held to service was one of compact between the States, and conferred no power of legislation on Congress, having been transferred from the ordinance of 1787, in which it conferred no power on the Confederation, and was never understood to confer any. He was subsequently engaged for the defence in the case of Driskell vs. Parish, before the U.S. Circuit Court at Columbus, and re-argued the same positions."

Mr. Chase's political history is thus summed up in the same article:

"Mr. Chase's sentiments of hostility to the nationalization of slavery were expressed by his position in the political movements of the country, as well as his efforts at the bar. Prior to 1841 he had taken little part in politics. He had voted sometimes with the Democrats, but more commonly with the Whigs, who, in the North, seemed to him more favorable to anti-slavery views than their opponents. He supported Gen. Harrison in 1840, but the tone of his inaugural address, and still more the course of the Tyler administration, convinced him that no effective resistance to the encroachments of slavery was to be expected from any party with a slaveholding and pro-slavery wing, modifying if not controlling its action; and in 1841 he united in a call for a convention of the opponents of slavery and slavery extension, which assembled in Columbus in December of that year. This convention organized the liberty party of Ohio, nominated a candidate for governor, and issued an address to the people defining its principles and purposes. – This address, written and reported by Mr. Chase, and unanimously adopted by the convention, deserves attention as one of the earliest expositions of the political movements against slavery. In 1843, a national liberty convention assembled at Buffalo. Mr. Chase was an active member of the committee on resolutions, to which was referred, under a rule of the convention, a resolution proposing 'to regard and treat the third clause of the Constitution, whenever applied to the case of a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, and consequently as forming no part of the Constitution of the United States, whenever we are called upon or sworn to support it.' Mr. Chase opposed the resolution, and the committee refused to report it. It was, however, afterward moved in the convention by its author, and adopted. Having been charged in the U.S. Senate with the authorship and advocacy of this resolution, by Mr. Butler of South Carolina, who denounced the doctrine of mental reservation apparently sanctioned by it, Mr. Chase replied: 'I have only to say I never proposed the resolution; I never would propose or vote for such a resolution. I hold no doctrine of mental reservation. Every man, in my judgment, should speak just as he thinks, keeping nothing back, here or elsewhere.' In 1843 it became Mr. Chase's duty to prepare an address on behalf of the friends of liberty, Ireland, and repeal in Cincinnati, to the loyal national repeal association in Ireland, in reply to a letter from Daniel O'Connell.

"In this address Mr. Chase reviewed the relations of the federal government to slavery at the period of its organization, set forth its original anti-slavery policy, and the subsequent growth of the political power of slavery, vindicated the action of the liberal party, and repelled the aspersions cast by a repeal association in Cincinnati upon anti-slavery men. In 1845 Mr. Chase projected a southern and western liberty convention, designed to embrace 'all who, believing that whatever is worth preserving in republicanism can be maintained only by uncompromising war against the usurpations of the slave power, and are therefore resolved to use all constitutional and honorable means to effect the extinction of slavery in their respective States, and its reduction to its constitutional limits in the United States.' The convention was held in Cincinnati in June, 1845, and was attended by 4,000 persons; delegates were present to the number of 2,000. Mr. Chase, as chairman of the committee, prepared the address, giving a history of slavery in the United States, showing the position of the Whig and Democratic parties, and arguing the necessity of a political organization unequivocally committed to the denationalization of slavery and the overthrow of the slave power, and exhibiting what he regarded as the necessary hostility of the slaveholding interest to democracy and all liberal measures. This address was widely circulated.

"In 1847, Mr. Chase was a member of the Second National Liberty Convention, and opposed the making of any national nomination at that time, urging that a more general movement against slavery extension and denomination, was likely to grow out of the agitation of the Wilmot Proviso, and the action of Congress and political parties in reference to slavery. In 1848, anticipating that the conventions of the Whig and Democratic parties would probably refuse to take grounds against the extensions of slavery, he prepared a call for a free territory state convention at Columbus, which was signed by more than 3,000 voters of all political parties. The convention thus called was largely attended, and invited a national convention to meet at Buffalo in August. The influence of Mr. Chase was conspicuous in the state convention, and no less so in the national convention, which assembled upon its invitation, and nominated Mr. Van Buren for President. An immense mass meeting was held at Buffalo at the same time. Mr. Chase was president of the national convention, and also a member of its committee on resolutions. The platform was substantially his work. On February 22d, 1849, Mr. Chase was chosen a senator of the United States from Ohio, receiving the entire vote of the Democratic members of the Legislature, and of those freesoil members who favored Democratic views. The Democratic party of Ohio, by the resolutions of its state convention, had already declared slavery an evil; and practically, through its press and the declarations of its leading men, had committed itself to the denationalization of slavery. Mr. Chase, therefore, coinciding with the Democrats in their general views of the state policy, supported their state nominees, distinctly announcing his intention, in the event of the party's desertion of its anti-slavery position, in state or national conventions, to end at once his connection with it. When the nomination of Mr. Pierce by the Baltimore convention of 1852, with a platform approving the compromise acts of 1850, and denouncing the further discussion of the slavery question, was sanctioned by the Democratic party in Ohio, Mr. Chase, true to his word, withdrew from it, and addressed to the Hon. B. F. Butler, of New York, his associate in the Buffalo convention, a letter in vindication of an independent Democratic party. He prepared a platform, which was substantially adopted by the convention of the independent Democracy at Pittsburg in 1852. Having thus gone into a minority rather than compromise his principles, Mr. Chase gave a cordial and energetic support to the nominees and measures of the independent Democracy, until the Nebraska bill gave rise to a new and powerful party, based substantially upon the ideas he had so long maintained. As a senator of the United States, Mr. Chase delivered on March 26 and 27, 1850, a speech against Mr. Clay's compromise bill, reviewing thoroughly all the questions presented in it. He moved an amendment providing against the introduction of slavery in the territories to which the bill applied, but it failed by a vote of 25 to 30. He proposed also, though without success, an amendment to the fugitive slave bill, securing trial by jury to alleged slaves, and another conforming its provisions to the terms of the Constitution, by excluding from its operation persons escaping from State or territories, and vice versâ. In 1854, when the bill for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, commonly called the Nebraska Kansas bill, was introduced, he drafted an appeal to the people against the measure, which was signed by the senators and representatives in Congress, concurring in his political opinions; and in a speech on February 3, attempted the first elaborate exposure of the features of that bill, as viewed by its opponents. In the general opposition to the Nebraska bill he took a leading part, and the rejection of three of his proposed amendments, was thought to be of such significance as bearing on the slavery question, that it may be well to state them. The first proposed to add after the words, 'subject only to the Constitution of the United States,' in section 14, the following clause: 'Under which the people of the territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein.' This was rejected, yeas 10, nays 36. The second proposed to give practical effect to the principle of popular sovereignty by providing for the election by the people of the territory of their own governor, judges, and secretary, instead of leaving, as in the bill, their appointment to the Federal Executive. This was defeated, yeas 10, nays 30. He then proposed an amendment of the boundary, so as to have but one territory, named Nebraska, instead of two entitled respectively Nebraska and Kansas. This was rejected, yeas 8, nays 34. His opposition to the bill was ended by a final and earnest protest against it on the night of its passage. While thus vigilant in maintaining his principles on the slavery question, Mr. Chase was constant in the discharge of the general duties of his position. To divorce the Federal Government from all connection with slavery; to confine its action strictly within Constitutional limits; to uphold the rights of individuals and of States; to foster with equal care all the great interests of the country, and to secure an economical administration of the national finances, were the general aims, which he endeavored, both by his votes and his speeches, to promote. On the interests of the West, he always kept a watchful eye, claiming that the Federal treasury should defray the expenses of providing for the safety of navigation on our great inland seas, as well as on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and advocating liberal aid by the Federal Government to the construction of a railroad to the Pacific by the best, shortest, and cheapest route.

"He was an earnest supporter of the policy of the free homestead movement, in behalf of which he expressed his views during the first session of his term, on presenting a petition for granting the public lands, in limited quantities, to actual settlers not possessed of other land. He was also an early advocate of cheap postage and an unwearied opponent of extravagant appropriations. In July, 1855, Mr. Chase was nominated by the opponents of the Nebraska bill and the Pierce administration for governor of Ohio, and was elected. His inaugural address, delivered in 1856, recommended economy in the administration of public affairs, single districts for legislative representation, annual instead of biennial sessions of the legislature, and ample provision for the educational interests of the State. His state policy and senatorial course were now so much approved that at the national convention of the Republican party, held the same year, a majority of the Ohio delegation and many delegates from other States, desired his nomination for the presidency; but his name was, at his request, withdrawn. His first annual message to the Ohio legislature, in 1857, after reviewing the material resources, and the financial and educational condition of the State, together with its federal relations, recommended a bureau of statistics, which was accordingly established.

"During the same year, a deficit of over $500,000 being discovered in the State treasury, a few days before the semi-annual interest of the State debt became due, the decided action of Gov. Chase compelled the resignation of the State treasurer, who had concealed its existence, secured a thorough investigation, and, through a prompt and judicious arrangement, protected the credit of the State and averted a large pecuniary loss. At the close of his first term, Gov. Chase desired to retire from office, but the Republicans insisted on his renomination, which was made by acclamation. After an active canvass, the continued confidence of the people in his administration was manifested by his reëlection by the largest vote ever given for a governor in Ohio. In his annual message, in 1858, after submitting an elaborate exposition of the financial condition and resources of Ohio, he recommended semi-annual taxation, more stringent provisions for the security of the treasury, and a special attention to the State benevolent institutions, including the reform school, in which he had always manifested a deep interest. These suggestions met the approbation of the legislature, and laws were passed accordingly."

The sketch we have quoted, gives an exact and impartial, though brief, history of the political acts of Mr. Chase, but it is bloodless, without enthusiasm, and to the friends of the distinguished subject of the sketch, will seem cold, giving no adequate idea of the ability and greatness of the man; but the sketch is perfectly impartial, and accurate in every particular.

Mr. Chase, while in the Senate of the United States, bore a very high reputation as a debater and as an orator. He never descended to notice personal attacks unless his political history was called in question, and remained cool and unruffled through scenes of great excitement and under a storm of personalities. His manner is dignified and his eloquence massive. Few men can deliver a speech, which for force, solid arguments, and high-toned eloquence, will equal the best of his. He is not an impetuous orator, or man, but is always collected, calm, and self-poised. Nevertheless, he has warm and enthusiastic friends, and those who know him best esteem him most.

In his personal appearance, Mr. Chase is somewhat imposing, for he is tall, of large proportions, with a large head and face, a fine port, dignified bearing, and an eye of quick intelligence. Through his entire career, whether at the bar, in Congress, or in the gubernatorial chair, Mr. Chase has never for an instant compromised the integrity or dignity of his character.

One of the finest of his senatorial speeches was made Feb. 3, 1854, in reply to a severe attack of Mr. Douglas upon himself and two or three other gentlemen, who had issued an address to the people upon the Kansas-Nebraska act. We can only quote the closing portions of this great speech:

"Mr. President, three great eras have marked the history of this country, in respect of slavery. The first may be characterized as the era of enfranchisement. It commenced with the earliest struggle for national independence. The spirit which inspired it animated the hearts and prompted the efforts of Washington, of Jefferson, of Patrick Henry, of Wythe, of Adams, of Jay, of Hamilton, of Morris – in short, of all the great men of our early history. All these hoped, all these labored for, all these believed in the final deliverance of the country from the curse of slavery. That spirit burned in the Declaration of Independence, and inspired the provisions of the Constitution, and of the Ordinance of 1787. Under its influence, when in full vigor, State after State provided for the emancipation of the slaves within their limits, prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Under its feebler influence at a later period, and during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, the importation of slaves was prohibited into Mississippi and Louisiana, in the faint hope that these territories might finally become free States. Gradually that spirit ceased to influence our public councils, and lost its control over the American heart and the American policy. Another era succeeded, but by such imperceptible gradations that the hues which separate the two cannot be traced with absolute precision. The facts of the two eras meet and mingle as the currents of confluent streams mix so imperceptibly that the observer cannot fix the spot where the meeting waters blend.

"This second era was the era of Conservatism. Its great maxim was to preserve the existing condition. Men said, let things remain as they are; let slavery stay where it is; exclude it where it is not; refrain from disturbing the public quiet by agitation; adjust all differences that arise, not by the application of principles, but by compromises.

"It was during this period that the senator tells us that slavery was maintained in Illinois, both while a territory and after it became a State, in despite of the provisions of the ordinance. It is true, sir, that the slaves held in the Illinois country, under the French law, were not regarded as absolutely emancipated by the provisions of the ordinance. But full effect was given to the ordinance in excluding the introduction of slaves, and thus the territory was preserved from eventually becoming a slave State. The few slaveholders in the territory of Indiana, which then included Illinois, succeeded in obtaining such an ascendency in its affairs, that repeated applications were made, not merely by conventions of delegates, but by the Territorial Legislature itself, for a suspension of a clause in the ordinance prohibiting slavery. These applications were reported upon by John Randolph, of Virginia, in the House, and by Mr. Franklin, in the Senate. Both the reports were against suspension. The grounds stated by Randolph are specially worthy of being considered now. They are thus stated in the report:

"'That the committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of emigration.'

"Sir, these reports, made in 1803 and 1807, and the action of Congress upon them, in conformity with their recommendation, saved Illinois, and perhaps Indiana, from becoming slave States. When the people of Illinois formed their State constitution, they incorporated into it a section providing that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall be hereafter introduced into this State. The constitution made provision for the continued service of the few persons who were originally held as slaves, and then bound to service under the Territorial laws, and for the freedom of their children, and thus secured the final extinction of slavery. The senator thinks that this result is not attributable to the ordinance. I differ from him. But for the ordinance I have no doubt slavery would have been introduced into Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. It is something to the credit of the era of conservatism, uniting its influences with those of the expiring era of enfranchisement, that it maintained the Ordinance of 1787 in the north-west.

"The era of conservatism passed, also, by imperceptible gradations, into the era of slavery propagandism. Under the influences of this new spirit, we opened the whole territory acquired from Mexico, except California, to the ingress of slavery. Every foot of it was covered by a Mexican prohibition; and yet, by the legislation of 1850, we consented to expose it to the introduction of slaves. Some, I believe, have actually been carried into Utah and into New Mexico. They may be few, perhaps, but a few are enough to affect materially the probable character of their future governments.

"Sir, I believe we are on the verge of another era. The introduction of this question here, and its discussion, will greatly hasten its advent. That era will be the era of reaction. We, who insist upon the denationalization of slavery, and upon the absolute divorce of the General Government from all connection with it, will stand with the men who favored the compromise acts, and who yet wish to adhere to them, in their letter and in their spirit, against the repeal of the Missouri prohibition. You may pass it here, you may send it to the other House, it may become law; but its effect will be to satisfy all thinking men that no compromise with slavery will endure, except so long as they serve the interests of slavery; and that there is no safe and honorable ground to stand upon, except that of restricting slavery within State limits, and excluding it absolutely from the whole sphere of federal jurisdiction. The old questions between political parties are at rest. No great question so thoroughly possesses the public mind as this of slavery. This discussion will hasten the inevitable reorganization of parties upon the new issues which our circumstances suggest. It will light up a fire in the country which may, perhaps, consume those who kindle it.

"I cannot believe that the people of this country have so far lost sight of the maxims and principles of the Revolution, or are so insensible to the obligations which those maxims and principles impose, as to acquiesce in the violation of this compact. Sir, the Senator from Illinois tells us that he proposes a final settlement of all territorial questions in respect to slavery, by the application of the principle of popular sovereignty. What kind of popular sovereignty is that which allows one portion of the people to enslave another portion? Is that the doctrine of equal rights? Is that exact justice? Is that the teaching of enlightened, liberal, progressive Democracy? No, sir; no! There can be no real Democracy which does not fully maintain the rights of man, as man. Living, practical, earnest Democracy imperatively requires us, while carefully abstaining from unconstitutional interference with the internal regulations of any State upon the subject of slavery, or any other subject, to insist upon the practical application of its great principles in all the legislation of Congress.

"I repeat, sir, that we who maintain these principles will stand shoulder to shoulder with the men who, differing from us upon other questions, will yet unite with us in opposition to the violation of plighted faith contemplated by this bill. There are men, and not a few, who are willing to adhere to the compromise of 1850. If the Missouri prohibition, which that compromise incorporates and preserves among its own provisions, shall be repealed, abrogated, broken up, thousands will say: Away with all compromises; they are not worth the paper on which they are printed; we will return to the old principles of the Constitution. We will assert the ancient doctrine, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, by the legislation of Congress, without due process of law. Carrying out that principle into its practical applications, we will not cease our efforts until slavery shall cease to exist wherever it can be reached by the constitutional action of the government.

"Sir, I have faith in progress. I have faith in Democracy. The planting and growth of this nation, upon this western continent, was not an accident. The establishment of the American Government, upon the sublime principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the organization of the Union of these States, under our existing Constitution, was the work of great men, inspired by great ideas, guided by Divine Providence. These men, the fathers of the Republic, have bequeathed to us the great duty of so administering the government which they organized, as to protect the rights, to guard the interests, and promote the well-being, of all persons within its jurisdiction, and thus present to the nations of the earth a noble example of wise and just self-government. Sir, I have faith enough to believe that we shall yet fulfill this high duty. Let me borrow the inspiration of Milton, while I declare my belief, that we have yet a country 'not degenerated, nor drooping to a fatal decay, but destined, by casting off the old and wrinkled skin of corruption, to outlive these pangs, and wax young again, and, entering the glorious ways of truth and prosperous virtue, become great and honorable in these latter ages. Methinks I see in my mind a great and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam; purging and unscaling her long-abused sight at the fountain itself of heavenly radiance; while the whole noise of timorous and flocking birds, with those also that love the twilight, flutter about, amazed at what she means, and in their envious gabble would prognosticate a year of sects and schisms.'

"Sir, we may fulfill this sublime destiny, if we will but faithfully adhere to the great maxims of the Revolution; honestly carrying into their legitimate practical applications the high principles of democracy; and preserve inviolate plighted faith and solemn compacts. Let us do this, putting our trust in the God of our fathers, and there is no dream of national prosperity, power, and glory, which ancient or modern builders of ideal commonwealths ever conceived, which we may not hope to realize. But if we turn aside from these ways of honor, to walk in the by-paths of temporary expedients, compromising with wrong, abetting oppression, and repudiating faith, the wisdom and devotion and labors of our fathers will have been all – all in vain.

"Sir, I trust that the result of this discussion will show that the American Senate will sanction no breach of compact. Let us strike from the bill the statement which historical facts and our personal recollections disprove, and then reject every proposition which looks toward a violation of the plighted faith and solemn compact which our fathers made, and which we, their sons, are bound, by every tie of obligation, sacredly to maintain."

Mr. Chase's opinions respecting the independence of the State courts can be gathered from his message to the Ohio Legislature, Jan. 4, 1858. We quote:

"A disposition has been manifested, within the last few years, by some of the officials of the Federal Government, exercising their functions within the limits of Ohio, to disregard the authority, and to encroach upon the rights of the State, to an extent and in a manner which demands your notice.